Might want to review his comments on Runblad and the 55% corsi rating that he referenced while stating that Runblad was a good player.
- MJL

So he took Runblad's corsi and suggested he was the best player in the game? Interesting, I didn't see that.

Your statement was idiotic though. Sorry.
- djamon

Sure it was.

No one...not even Tanner...is claiming there's an individual statistic that will determine that. That's just a strawman argument.
- djamon

I don't hate Tanner, and agree with some of what he says, but he absolutely cherry picks statistics, and will flip flop on what is important that day to suit his argument.

Which is fine, everyone has some bias, it's just always slightly comical when the bias comes from people who use statistics or "unbiased" numbers.

Perfect example. In this blog, he cited Rundblad's overall CF%, instead of his Rel. Corsi to his teamates. Without looking, I'm gonna wager, they aren't as pretty.

Which is funny because when Tanner knocks Drew Doughty, he cites relative stats to his team.

So he took Runblad's corsi and suggested he was the best player in the game? Interesting, I didn't see that.
- djamon

Hyperbole on your part. No one stated or implied that Tanner said Runblad was the best player in the game. You want to talk about idiotic?

If you actually want to talk about Hockey, I'm game otherwise, I'm moving on.

Fun Stat Tanner left out. During his 3 "seasons" with Chicago, Rundblad had a PDO of 103. Which is incredibly lucky, which might help explain his great p/60

Tanner, you remind me of Garth. Always inflammatory statements that are bound to get people who know the game up in arms. Then you post a stupid chart and say "look at the numbers'. You must win millions with your inside track on 'numbers'. You're a a piece of work. Has even one of your blogs received a positive response? Troll on Garth, I mean Tanner.

Rundblad? Rundblad? Rundblad? Seriously, now I just feel bad for you.

If Runblad was still a Hawk Jaeckel would would be singing his praises. Biggest homer on the Buzz.
- shack67

You're not this stupid in real life, are you? Do you even read the Blackhawks blogs?

I mean, if you read ANY of John's blogs ... and I mean ... ANY of them in which Rundblad was mentioned, John reiterates what everyone else who watches the 'Hawks and hockey sees, and that is that David is a liability every time he steps onto that ice. It's moaning and groaning from EVERY 'Hawks fan whenever it's known that Rundblad will be in the lineup that night, because you're not skating six d-men, you're skating five.

He does have a powerful shot, he has the ability to create scoring chances "at times" due to his ability to pass once in a while, but those few pros aside, he's scared of contact, he hesitates WAY too much with the puck due to lack of confidence, and whenever he DOES play, Q pairs him with Keith, the team's best defense-men to hide Rundblad and his plethora of deficiencies.

I don't know why it's so hard for you people to grasp the concept that Rundblad is a very bad NHL player. There's a reason he has played on four clubs in the past five seasons (including a stint in Europe), and why he's currently a free agent.

He's not an NHL caliber player. He's just not.

Oh, and it's funny how you call John the biggest homer on HockeyBuzz. Just comical.

Meh...Runblad will be fine in Phoenix. He'll be the 4th D-man at best or in the bottom 6. He'll have a nice time in a non-pressure hockey market where the media aren't asking him to be Keith, Hjalmarsson, or Seabrook. He was doomed in CHI as Stan gave up a 2nd round pick for him. As a Coyote he'll have one playoff year maybe, will make a couple nice plays here and there and nobody will remember his name 10 years from now. He'll be as storied as Sami Lepisto.

Why are you bringing race into this? Where's the data to suggest that whites are more sexist than other races? In Canada the only communities where violence against women is not decreasing is the aboriginal communities.
- flamminghead

I live in Vancouver have a number of close friends that are of East Indian and Chinese heritage and I can tell you one thing FOR SURE:

Both East Indian and Chinese residents here in Vancouver are FAR more racists towards the Caucasian population that the Caucasian population is towards them. My friends laugh about it all the time. I have seen it many times first hand. Not that it really bothers me....Unfortunately it is the way the world works and probably always will.

All anyone needs to know about Tanner is when he says, "I have watched Rundblad and think he is a top pairing D man" That right there either tells you #1 he has never really watched him play and is blowing smoke, or #2 he has absolutely no idea about anything hockey related.

Dude is 25 and when the next AHl team signs him ( won't come anywhere near the NHL ever again) it will be ( if he gets a contract in North America) his 5th team in 6 years. That right there tells you that Tanner knows absolutely nothing and everyone else is right and Rundblad Sucks!! Can't defend, afraid of contact, and can't skate, sounds like a top pair D man to me.....maybe on the Coyotes....

Yeah, thanks for the intelligent comment. The point of talking about Rundblad so much is to illustrate that there is still a wide divide in the game between certain ways of thinking. Given his track record, him not having a contract is pretty ridiculous.
- James_Tanner

Your comment is not intelligent. His track record is why he has no contract

You're not this stupid in real life, are you? Do you even read the Blackhawks blogs?

I mean, if you read ANY of John's blogs ... and I mean ... ANY of them in which Rundblad was mentioned, John reiterates what everyone else who watches the 'Hawks and hockey sees, and that is that David is a liability every time he steps onto that ice. It's moaning and groaning from EVERY 'Hawks fan whenever it's known that Rundblad will be in the lineup that night, because you're not skating six d-men, you're skating five.
.
- TommyHawk

but somehow Tanner concludes that his pet stat PROVES everyone else is wrong about this guy.

People with even a fraction of a working brain come to a more obvious, and accurate, conclusion that the stat just might not be indicating what Tanner seems to think it does. In fact, it might not be indicating anything at all.

Didn't you say something similar about Artemi Panarin? Not that he was trash but his stats were a direct result of playing with Kane?
- cnfan261311

Yes.

I love how you spend every plus minus article you wrote rambling on about how apparently nobody in the hockey world knows anything about the sport (interjected with arguably the worst collection of garbage music known to man) and how "character" and "hockey sense" type of players are a thing of the past, and the only viable way to measure a player on any level is with a hero chart. You know there's a middle ground right? You can use some statistical analysis of players AS WELL as watching them play and understood how they work with other guys and the things you can't put into stats. While I agree JayBo was a weird choice, I can also see why Subban was left off, he doesn't exactly fit the mold for the roster they put together. It's not necessarily always just about putting the best players available together. I was also under the impression you thought all international hockey was a joke?

You're not this stupid in real life, are you? Do you even read the Blackhawks blogs?

I mean, if you read ANY of John's blogs ... and I mean ... ANY of them in which Rundblad was mentioned, John reiterates what everyone else who watches the 'Hawks and hockey sees, and that is that David is a liability every time he steps onto that ice. It's moaning and groaning from EVERY 'Hawks fan whenever it's known that Rundblad will be in the lineup that night, because you're not skating six d-men, you're skating five.

He does have a powerful shot, he has the ability to create scoring chances "at times" due to his ability to pass once in a while, but those few pros aside, he's scared of contact, he hesitates WAY too much with the puck due to lack of confidence, and whenever he DOES play, Q pairs him with Keith, the team's best defense-men to hide Rundblad and his plethora of deficiencies.

I don't know why it's so hard for you people to grasp the concept that Rundblad is a very bad NHL player. There's a reason he has played on four clubs in the past five seasons (including a stint in Europe), and why he's currently a free agent.

He's not an NHL caliber player. He's just not.

Oh, and it's funny how you call John the biggest homer on HockeyBuzz. Just comical.
- TommyHawk

So who's a bigger homer than John? Garth? A tie I'd say.

I think the biggest problem with some of the people defending statistics on here is that they seem to be assuming the "science of hockey statistics" is perfect and/or complete.

IT IS NOT. Hell, it's not like Corsi was even around a few decades ago. I bet everyone thought that was the greatest thing ever for awhile. Then people realized it didn't tell the whole story and they made a variant of it and called it Fenwick. Over time people will figure out new ways (and hopefully better) of measuring the game.

Why do people come up with new stats every once in awhile? Because they find holes in the current stats, variables that weren't properly accounted for or were not given enough importance. The reason why you cannot judge players entirely by statistics is because statistics are not a perfected method - they likely never will be.

When you have so many different statistics for different situations and focusing on different variables, it is also easy for people to jump to erroneous conclusions when looking only at a few stats.

This is why you do not base conclusions only on stats. Statistics are a tool you use to confirm or question your own experiences/observations and expert opinions. If you find a player that has stats that are very far off from what you have confirmed through those other sources it simply means:

A) they deserve another look in case everyone has missed something about them
B) You've used the statistics incorrectly (maybe a poor sample size or not using the right statistics for your research)
C) The statistics have a flaw in their methodology that skew this person's achievements - maybe you have an opportunity to figure out the problem and make a new statistic!

Tanner, you remind me of Garth. Always inflammatory statements that are bound to get people who know the game up in arms. Then you post a stupid chart and say "look at the numbers'. You must win millions with your inside track on 'numbers'. You're a a piece of work. Has even one of your blogs received a positive response? Troll on Garth, I mean Tanner.
- Bower

I love how you spend every plus minus article you wrote rambling on about how apparently nobody in the hockey world knows anything about the sport (interjected with arguably the worst collection of garbage music known to man) and how "character" and "hockey sense" type of players are a thing of the past, and the only viable way to measure a player on any level is with a hero chart. You know there's a middle ground right? You can use some statistical analysis of players AS WELL as watching them play and understood how they work with other guys and the things you can't put into stats. While I agree JayBo was a weird choice, I can also see why Subban was left off, he doesn't exactly fit the mold for the roster they put together. It's not necessarily always just about putting the best players available together. I was also under the impression you thought all international hockey was a joke?
- Turchet

The music part is ridiculous. It's like an audition for the next mini pops album.

I have to question if you exactly have ever watched David Rundblad play.

You are talking about about the smooth skating righthander who tried for more than a few years to catch on as a defender in Chicago?

He was a terrible wall player who felt rushed in his own end when the biquit was sent his way.

Ever heard the NFL term "He heard footsteps?"

He did even when they weren't close.

I don't think he was a chickenpoopies...just that he was ever able to reconcile his actions in pressured situations with solid puck decisions and even holding it and reading pressure to outlet the puck.

Sure he can dangle on a carry, he can let the puck go, and even walk the blueline, but all that amounts to littl if you can play your own end.

Meh...Runblad will be fine in Phoenix. He'll be the 4th D-man at best or in the bottom 6. He'll have a nice time in a non-pressure hockey market where the media aren't asking him to be Keith, Hjalmarsson, or Seabrook. .
- acmidd28

No he won't - he will be mediocre and make his 'yote average-abilities team worst.

So who's a bigger homer than John? Garth? A tie I'd say.
- shack67

I don't mind bloggers being homers. They are, after all, supposed to appeal to their fan-base and we are all homers.

It's the troll-blogging that is pretty bush league.

Fun Stat Tanner left out. During his 3 "seasons" with Chicago, Rundblad had a PDO of 103. Which is incredibly lucky, which might help explain his great p/60
- sbroads24

Fun stat,

I DID mention relative stats in the article, and Rundblad's career relative CF is + 2%
and his career PDO is 98.99. (So who's the one cherry picking stats?? It ain't me).

The entire response to my point about Rundblad has been people coming up with more and more ridiculous ways to explain away his stats. Hilariously, all I said was that instead of ignoring his measurable effectiveness, it'd make sense to give him a risk-free tryout, since it's not impossible that good player's get overlooked.

I've never seen such poor reading comprehension in my entire life - and I've taught English to very bad students.

Yes.
- Blackstrom2

Obviously playing with Patrick Kane is going to pump up your stats, are you kidding me? But when you look at league-wide effects, how many guys play with Patrick Kane?

It's amazing to me how often people try to use one example to work backwards to form a bizarre conclusion, or how they try to equate some other example in some whacked out attempt to expose inconsistency.

but somehow Tanner concludes that his pet stat PROVES everyone else is wrong about this guy.

People with even a fraction of a working brain come to a more obvious, and accurate, conclusion that the stat just might not be indicating what Tanner seems to think it does. In fact, it might not be indicating anything at all.
- Aetherial

It's 100% of the time the most obvious (and lamest) insults that post the dumbest things. If you actually re-read what I wrote, you will see it's clearly calling for Rundblad to get another chance based on the idea that the stats are good and people can be wrong. At no point does it state that the stats PROVE anything.

It's hilarious how much poop I take here because when you look back at what I wrote, you realize that people have not in any way read it closely or thought about it.